text:
Is the Soloy Dual Pac recognised as two engines or one engine?
The Soloy Dual Pac apparently allows two engines to rotate one propeller -- here's a picture of it on an Otter:

Is this recognised as a centreline thrust twin engine aircraft, a "standard" twin engine aircraft or just an aircraft with a single engine for FAA certification? What about for pilot licensing?

I don't know the answer (and I'm not familiar with the Soloy Dual Pac), but isn't this situation similar to a twin-engine single-rotor helicopter, where two engines both drive the same rotor? Those are definitely considered multi-engine. (And the PT6 cores used in the Soloy Dual Pac are also commonly used in helicopters as the PT6B and PT6C variants.)

@TypeIA: I'd say it's even more similar to the Allison T40 - two power sections, two propellers (contra-rotating), but a single common gearbox, which was enough to have it considered a single engine.

According to the certificate is a

Twin Power Section Turboprop

and, later, note 7: (emphasis mine)

This engine is certificated as a unit comprising two separate power sections with the capability of single engine operation with either power section alone in multi-engine airplanes. The unit is also approved as a single engine with either or both engines operating continuously.

No explicit remark is given about pilot licensing, but given the note reported, I would say that a licence for a single engine is sufficient.

To me the bolded section sounds like it's main purpose is to imply single-engine rating is sufficient to operate it.

@JanHudec I thought I wrote exactly that, haven't I?

Would someone with only an AMEL rating also be allowed to fly it? (My understanding is that AMEL without ASEL is rare and expensive but technically possible?)

Two engines with the crankshaft welded, would be classified as a single engine. But when both crankshafts are connected with "one way cluck", a pure bureaucrat would call it multi-engines. A logical person would ask, how different would be to fly an aircraft with the crankshaft welded as a single piece or interconnected with one way clutches?
Both would fly in the same way. We expect that an intelligent person would classify it as a single engine as far as only one control is used for both engines. A helicopter is different because it uses more than one control.

More than one control for what?


text:
Is there always turbulence over China?
I'm not sure if this is appropriate to Aviation.SE, so apologies in advance if not.
I have taken several domestic flights over mainland China (as in, the People's Republic thereof) and, so far, it has always been a bumpy ride. I'm more familiar with flying (as a passenger on a commercial airline) around Europe and, to a lesser extent, the US and don't recall it ever being that bad. Likewise, the trip from Europe to China is reasonably stable.
Is there something about the weather or the terrain in that part of the world that causes this? (This, anecdotally, appears to apply both to flights across China, over the mountainous regions, as well as along the relatively flat eastern seaboard.) Or have I just been unlucky?

seems more a question for earthscience.se, imho

Both are fine I suppose

Mountains do generate non-usual wind patterns from winds getting redirected by them, so that might be the explanation for that.

China is well known for having very strict air traffic control, who often are reluctant to give pilots the flexibility to deviate around bad weather or try a different - smoother - flight level (as I've experienced first-hand). That can lead to aircraft in Chinese airspace encountering more turbulence than in other parts of the world.
Secondary to that, China can get some nasty weather: Particularly in the South. Compared to Europe they'll have more thunderstorms, for example, and that can lead to increased turbulence. This image here gives an overview of the number of lightning strikes around the globe. Aside from a few patches in Italy, China has more lightning - and hence more turbulence due to thunderstorms - than anywhere in Europe. As you mention, the mountainous terrain in some parts of the country also has an effect, although you get that in Europe too.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

authors: Jack anan - แจ๊คแอนแอน

sort: votes


text:
On an inverted aircraft, is the ILS glide slope sensing reversed?
If I'm halfway through a barrel roll on final descent, on an ILS, will I get reverse sensing on my glide slope indicator?

I'm not sure if this is a joke or not... If you are doing barrel rolls in IFR on the glide-slope, you have many other problems to worry about rather than trying to intercept. Are you asking if the glide slope indicator is independent of aircraft attitude? Then the answer would be yes.

The first word in the sentence indicates that we're talking about a hypothetical situation. I'm sure that most reasonable people understand this.

Well first off said stunt is illegal under 91.303 aerobatic flight regs and 91.13 careless and reckless operation of an aircraft.  And it's also very dangerous.  But no, it would not result in reverse sensing due to the fact that the ILS system is only capable of sensing whether it is receiving more of the 90 Hz signal as opposed to the 150 Hz signal and interprets this as either above or below glideslope.  It cannot differentiate between erect and inverted flight.

Why would it necessarily be illegal? Couldn't such a maneuver be performed legally with an appropriate aerobatic waiver?

You'd have to obtain a waiver from the FAA for this kind of flying near an airport?  Could you?  Possibly.  But I doubt like he'll they're going to authorize this for an experiment like that described above.  And then of course you'll have to find an aerobatic airplane which is IFR certified to try this with.

I think it would just require an aerobatic waiver, preferably low level, over an airport with an ILS, with an aircraft with an ILS receiver (or a handheld). Sounds very doable. The question says nothing about IMC or an IFR flight plan, just flying an ILS inverted.

The ILS can't differentiate between erect and inverted flight, but indicates being above the glideslope in world coordinates with the needle down in the aircraft coordinates. But when you are inverted, down in the aircraft coordinates is up in the world coordinates, so you have to fly away from the needle instead of towards. That's what I'd call reverse sensing.

By that logic the glideslope sensor would have to sense whether the aircraft is erect or inverted in order for such a reverse sensing to occur.  It doesn't.  It just senses a more intense signal of one frequency vs another and uses this to position a deviation indicator relative to center.  As such even if the aircraft is inverted, maneuvering towards the deviation on glideslope will center the needle.  Reverse sensing does not occur.

Any instrument rated pilot who has logged simulator time who says they've never flown an inverted ILS is either lying or unimaginative.

@CarloFelicione It depends if you're interpreting an "up" on the glideslope indicator as "fly higher" or as "move in the direction the instrument is pointing". If the second, then it is indeed telling you the reverse.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How should a Traffic Control Tower notify aircraft that their frequency just changed?
What is the policy for ATC towers to notify aircraft the frequency they broadcast and monitor on has changed? How do they do it, if radio isn't available (because they just changed their frequency)?

ATC frequencies don't change very often, but when they do they are planned well in advance.  NOTAM's are issued ahead of time to let people know, and if the airport has ATIS they will include the new frequency on the ATIS.
If it is an enroute frequency, the other controllers will simply hand you off to the new frequency, and you don't even need to know about it ahead of time.

Some airports change tower frequencies quite often, for example, when there are two tower controllers during busy times and only one the rest of the time. In class B and C airports you are almost always handed off to the tower by the ground or approach controller, so you don't need to know the tower frequency in advance.

@xpda Well, those airports have multiple tower frequencies, and they are usually listed on the airport diagram.  Also, B's and usually C's also have ATIS which report when they are running on a non-standard configuration (like "all tower frequencies combined on 119.1").  I took the question as asking about permanent changes.

True... the question is a little ambiguous. And usually they will talk on both frequencies when there is only one official frequency.

@xpda usually you would just couple the frequencies and still use them as usual

A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) will be issued for the airport pending a charting change.  If you subscribe to a charting service like Jeppesen, you will get a change notice from them and updated approach plates with the new frequency.

Note that frequency changes don't always coincide with the chart revision cycle (unfortunately) so very often the only way to know is to check the NOTAM's while we wait for the new chart to come out.

That was the intended meaning of my wording.  The NOTAM will be issued and valid until the new charts are published.  And yes, for sectionals that can be something like 6 months if I recall.  Thanks for clarifying the meaning.

The answers here already explain how the information might be disseminated to pilots if the change is planned well in advance. But what if conditions require changing the frequency in use without notice?
Many facilities have backup equipment for each frequency. If the controller determines that a problem with radio communications is on the ATC side (e.g. if they suddenly can't get a response from multiple aircraft) they can switch to the backup equipment and hope that works.
If the backup equipment doesn't solve the problem, many facilities have multiple frequencies they can pull up. Generally each control position is able to immediately change which frequencies it uses—these will not be manually tunable, but based on the pre-set frequencies that are hardwired to individual transmitters and receivers. Sometimes a frequency may be allotted to a facility for explicit use as a backup, while in other cases it may be a lesser-used or historically-used frequency; for example, one sector at my facility has a main radar control frequency, a secondary frequency, a frequency dedicated for guiding aircraft to the runway by vectors alone, and a "remote" frequency whose transmitter and receiver are located at a satellite airport. If aircraft are in range, any one of those frequencies may be used to communicate in an unusual situation. Generally each control position (each radar "scope" or "sector") will have one or more dedicated frequencies, but during times of slower traffic multiple positions may be combined and worked by a single controller; then all of the other frequencies become available for backup use. (This would probably only work in the approach and tower environments; in the enroute environment the transmitter sites would be too spread out to back each other up.)
So how do controllers tell pilots which frequency to use? Step one is to broadcast "in the blind" on the old frequency (on the off-chance it still works) and on the guard frequencies 121.5 and 243.0. In the US, the phraseology is Change to my frequency XXX.XX. Then the controller will coordinate with surrounding facilities/sectors and tell them to use the backup frequency instead of the normal one, and if possible/relevant will ask the tower advertise the backup frequency on the ATIS.
And finally, for a control tower in particular, there are portable tunable emergency radios stationed in the tower cab for use during an evacuation. The idea is that the controllers would grab the radios on their way down the stairs and would be able to provide rudimentary services once away from the building; of course they could also be used from within the building without evacuating. We've used ours that way when our main frequency was out of service: we tuned the portable radio to the main frequency, and if any pilots called on that frequency we would tell them to use the other one. (Again, due to the distances, this option is less useful for large approach controls and enroute centers.)


text:
Is there a website similar to FlightRadar24, but showing general aviation?
As far as I am concerned, FlightRadar24 reads out transponder responses.
As most engine driven aircrafts have at least a mode C transponder, is there a site that displays such traffic as well?

A lot of gliders are also visible on FR24, since many use an ADS-B-like system called FLARM.

Checkout adsbexchange.com

Yes, and no.
FlightAware (and I believe FlightRadar24) will show General Aviation aircraft (I panned around a bit and found N802AF, a Pilatus, buzzing around over Bethlehem, Pennsylvania just now).
The catch is most of these systems are fed with ATC data, and generally only pick up flights that are either on an instrument flight plan, or which have picked up flight following & been entered into the ATC system by the controller who set up the strip.
Most light GA aircraft are flying around VFR (transponder code 1200), and don't show up on these flight tracking sites. Similarly if you're assigned a "local" transponder code rather than a system-wide one  you typically won't show up on the tracking sites either (this is often the case when you're flying VFR and go through Approach/Departure for Class C or Class B transitions/arrivals).

As more of the fleet is equipped with ADS-B this coverage may improve, as anyone can set up an ADS-B receiver and skim the traffic data. That data is currently only broadcast when a "participating aircraft" (ADS-B Out equipped) is in the area though...

If I get flight following for a portion of my (GA VFR) flight, am I able to access history data somehow online once I'm on the ground?

Scrap that - seems to be available here: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N00001 (where N00001 is the tail number). Fascinating! Most recent flight is listed, and it says Registered users (registering is free and easy!) view 4 months history. I might just do that.

These systems use crowd sourced ADS-B data, in which case Mode-S equipped GA aircraft showup.

TL;DR
To properly track GA aircraft, one needs to operate professional equipment or an ATC datastream, both which are not available to most websites.

Flight radar 24 shows GA traffic in some occasions, but in general it cannot track these aircraft.
FR24 works primarily on ADS-B, which is a surveillance technology that transmits aircraft information including position. Strictly speaking, ADS-B messages are not responses since they are unsolicited transmissions.
General aviation equipped with only a Mode A/C (/S) transponder will not transmit ADS-B data. Mode A/C radar replies do not contain position information encoded in them so even if the receiver receives these responses, the position cannot be determined from them.
Only if a message is received by 4 receivers which are carefully synchronized in time, it is possible to determine the position that the message was sent from by analyzing the times of arrival at each receiver. The travel distance of the signal to each receiver is different and even though the signal travels at the speed of light, the time difference of arrival is measurable. Using the 4 times of arrival the position can be revealed using a process called multilateration.
FR24 is using this method for aircraft that transmit Mode S replies but for Mode A/C it is difficult. Firstly there is no aircraft identifier the A/C messages. If a lot of aircraft are flying with the same Mode A code (e.g. 1200 VFR) the arrival times quickly become ambiguous. To add to the difficulty there is no difference between the Mode A and Mode C message formats, so you might easily be comparing the time of a Mode A message from one receiver to a Mode C message from another.
Professional multilateration systems used for ATC make use of transmission antenna's that interrogate the aircraft transponders (like radar) to remove any ambiguities. This is not allowed for hobby systems.
Additionally FR24 works on 1090 MHz ADS-B messages. In the USA, an additional ADS-B technology is in use on 978 MHz (UAT). So even if GA is ADS-B equipped, in the USA they might not be detected by FR24.
So to properly track GA aircraft, one needs professional equipment or an ATC datastream, both which are not available to most websites.
The FAA provides 5 minute delayed radar track of aircraft, but only of those aircraft that fly on an IFR flight plan are included. Also aircraft owners can opt-out of that system for privacy reasons.
There are some websites that show GA movement. One that I like is the monitoring website for residents living near Amsterdam airport Schiphol. The website is fed by ATC data, with a delay of about 1 minute. It shows all traffic except military.

Wow. I learned a lot from this.

FlightAware picks up GA traffic, but only if it is on a flight plan (which sometimes includes VFR aircraft receiving flight following) or if the aircraft is ADS-B Out equipped and within their ADS-B coverage areas.
Either way, you're not currently going to get a full picture of the environment from any source - not in the way that ATC does, at least. Public sources aren't going to show the many, many aircraft not squawking unique codes.

Do you know if FlightAware picks up/shows all ADS-B flights, or do they still filter VFR (1200) traffic? (I'm dragging my feet on ADS-B, for want of a GPS I love, rather than just one I can tolerate, so I'm not up on how good the coverage is for those aircraft...)

@voretaq7 Their FAQ addresses that... they were hoping to show all flights by end of 2013.

ah... that whoosh I heard was the deadline sailing by then! :-)

The remarkable Skylines project offers tracking based on data transmitted from your smartphone, e.g. using the great and free XCSoar software. Quite glider-centric, though.

Oh good to know. I actually know the guy who did a lot of XCSoar's recoding :)

@Force thank you very much for your efforts! I also updated the Skylines URL.

You are right @Force the information presented on flightradar24.com are based on transponder outputs and completed with information stored in a database. Unfortunately a "simple" mode C or S is not sufficient for this. Flightradar24 gets its data not from ATC radars but from private suporters who run a receiver for so called ADS-B outputs from the aircraft. These are more advanced digital information then only the squawk, registration/callsign and altitude of an aircraft used by airliners. But more and more private owners use this technology and that's why you can look foreward to track more and more G/A traffic on flightradar24.com.
I know that flightaware.com also uses this data and additionally uses data provided by the FAA (with a five minute delay) as well. But you won't be able to track any aircraft with a VFR flight plan - unless he is ADS-B equipped - becuase in the US these flight plans are only used for SAR.
A little additional remark: If you observe the German airspace at flightradar24.com you'll sometimes find some microlights on the 'scope' - sometimes I think these aircraft are 100kg aircraft and 250kg avionics.


text:
How do you meet pilots looking for passengers?
I enjoy being up in the air.  Planes, gliders, helicopters... you name it, I like it.
What is an effective way to meet pilots looking for passengers?
I'm guessing that some pilots would like passengers to have someone with whom to share the experience, or maybe to gather hours for certifications.
I'm not looking to go anywhere in particular.  Although I'm open to flying to any destination, just going up in the air and coming back to the same airport is fine.
I enjoy being aloft in the daytime as well as at night.
I simply enjoy the experience of flying and want to connect with pilots who are looking for some company.

Interesting question, though I think pilots may be wary of the security risk. It'd probably help if you stated your general location.

I would consider flying clubs, EAA chapters, and community based pilot associations.  I have one former student, now in his 70's which helps a couple of owners wash their planes, and then flies with them.  However, most pilots, in the US, will be careful to avoid creating the impression that they are soliciting riders.

Well if you are in Australia I'd love to take you for a spin!
You need to find your local aviation community. Online, airport open days, the local aero club, flying schools, aviation events, and even at the fence of the airport - you'll find people if you go looking. In any aviation enthusiast group you're likely to find at least one private pilot. Build up a bit of a rapport and just ask them to take you up. Just be genuine, talk about what you love about flying, don't look shocked when they say you have to pay half (remembering that private pilots are not allowed to earn money for it, so don't let yourself get ripped off), and offer to buy them a beer afterwards or something :)
EDIT - I add the beer comment as a bit of a joke. Although it's always nice to get that bit of gratitude from a passenger, a pilot trying to build hours before going commercial would simply be thrilled to not have to pay for a full hour!

Aviation, for me, is a lifestyle more than anything.
Some background: I'm still a college student, but I'm going into the Air Force, I am on my school's flight team, I am getting a degree in asto engineering (and astro physics).  Almost everyone I know is involved in aviation or space in one way or another.  We fly around the southwest part of the country all the time, but it's normal.  One weekend I'll fly LA, and another a friend will take us to Vegas.
Have you considered going to flight training, yourself?  If you find a good flight school, you wont only learn to fly yourself, but you will meet other people like you.  And once you become friends with them you can all fly each other after you get your licences.
Honestly, I would be pretty uncomfortable flying with someone I don't know next to me.  For example, If you've ever picked up a hitch-hiker you might know how it's a bit awkward and uncomfortable making small talk with a completely random person.  Now imagine what that would be like in an airplane... a plane that most likely has controls in both (front) seats, and could do serious damage if used improperly.

Each to their own! I for one love bonding with new people with a shared passion. I'd have no problem taking up a stranger after a chat to see if their interest is legitimate.

You need to be aware that the holder of a Private Pilot Certificate (the entry level certificate that permits the carriage of Passengers) has rules that prohibit the pilot from "holding out", a term that implies the pilot is soliciting passengers.  So if you just blow into the local FBO and ask someone to take you up, there will be an immediate suspicion that you are from the FAA and may possibly be setting up a trap for the pilot.  IT IS VERY UNLIKELY that entrapment will be happening!  However, the fear of it may deter a pilot from saying yes, just as the fear of security concerns mentioned in other answers.
As suggested above, find a pilot group somewhere and build up a rapport with one or more pilots.  Then ask.

I'm assuming here that you're thinking of a 'free' or cost-sharing ride with a pilot, rather than actually hiring someone to fly you. In short, it may be possible but it depends on having a good relationship with the pilot and there could be some legal/regulatory issues (especially in the US, if that's where you are).
If you just want to fly as a passenger for the fun and experience, with no expectations at all about the route or duration of flight then the best thing you can do is to get involved in your local aviation community and make some contacts. I suspect that few pilots will take a complete stranger for a ride (see below for some US-centric reasons why not), but if you're a friend of a friend or a non-flying member of a flying club or whatever then that can open doors.
Of course, learning to fly would be an obvious way to get involved. If costs are a concern then you could consider gliding, which is significantly cheaper but would still let you make a lot of local aviation contacts. Or see if a local airport needs people to work on the line. Or maybe you have a complementary interest like photography and you can ask around at a local airport to see if any pilots would take you. But ultimately you'll have to establish a relationship of some kind with a pilot in order to go fly.
However, from the pilot's perspective there are some downsides to taking a 'random' stranger for a ride. First is simply trust and personal comfort level: do I want someone I don't know flying with me and (in most light aircraft) having access to the controls? Personally, I'd be concerned about possible panic attacks or simple motion sickness; someone trying to take over the aircraft is so unlikely that I think it's not worth worrying about.
Second - at least in the US, I don't know where you are - it's strictly forbidden for non-commercial pilots to receive any compensation for flying. "Compensation" is very broadly defined and even includes flying time itself, so if you want (or the pilots wants you) to contribute to the cost of the flights then it needs to be legal: the pilot must always pay at least his pro rata share. In most cases this isn't an issue because practically speaking the FAA has no way to know what private arrangements you've made and they certainly don't care if someone takes a friend for a flight and gets a free lunch in return. But there are limits: some companies are trying to create 'ride sharing' services to match pilots with passengers but the FAA has already said that it's illegal for private pilots to participate in them. Airpooler is the most prominent case, and their carefully worded FAQ saying that pilots are not compensated didn't persuade the FAA.
Finally there's liability: I know that many private pilots refuse to fly with passengers they don't know well because the risk of a lawsuit is so high in the case of an accident. I'm not saying that you personally would sue, but (in the worst case) your family or estate might.
So all in all, your best option is to get to know some pilots personally by whatever means works best for you given your location, interests and general access to aviation. I know that's a very vague answer, but a lot depends on your personal situation.


text:
Which Terminal Arrival Area depiction is correct between NACO and Jeppesen plates?
Looking at the RNAV (GPS) 19R into Wichita, KS (KICT), the TAA arrival segments are drawn differently between NACO and Jeppesen plates.  Please take note that the TAA arrivals on NACO charts show both the IAF and IF fixes on the arc segment while Jeppesen charts only show the IAF fix.
Which depiction more accurately depicts what the pilots are expected to do from ATC and when would a pilot ever perform the hold in lieu of procedure turn at ACUBO?
Thanks

It looks like with the NACO charts the segments with BEBAC and CADAC show the radius starting at ACUBO while Jeppesen charts make it appear the segments are based on the IAF.  From a pilot perspective if you are 1NM east of the airfield the NACO charts appear to say expect the BEBAC transition while Jeppesen charts appear to say expect the ACUBO transition.  Hence, the confusion.  Purely academc.  If ATC said, cleared RNAV approach with specifying the transition, what are they expecting.  I wuold ask and get clarification.

@wbeard52 I'm still a bit confused by what you're saying: can you mark/circle the differences you see on the images? I don't understand what you mean by the NACO "segments" starting at ACUBO and the Jepp ones at the IAF, because ACUBO is an IAF anyway. ATC will usually direct you to one of the 3 IAFs ("transition" is a SID/STAR term) and clear you for the approach from there. If they clear you without specifying the IAF, you proceed to the IAF for the sector you're in and fly the approach from there. See p.4-58 of the IPH that I mentioned. I'll update my answer.

I'm not familiar with Jepp plates but as far as I can see both plates are the same, it's just that Jepp chose not to depict ACUBO on the base area icons (as the FAA calls them). I assume that's to reduce clutter on the chart but I don't know for sure. In any event, I don't see how it would change the procedure in any way: all the fixes are still shown on both plates, and all the details seem to be the same.
As for the HILPT, the rule for procedure turns is that by default you have to fly them unless you have a valid reason not to (see this question). In the case of this approach, the plate says NoPT if you're approaching from the straight-in area or on the direct tracks from CADAC/BEBAC to ACUBO. If you get to ACUBO any other way, you have to fly the HILPT. The most likely reason would be that you're coming from the south and ATC vectors you directly to ACUBO rather than to CADAC or BEBAC: "N12345, proceed direct ACUBO, cleared for the RNAV 19R approach".
The FAA Instrument Procedure Handbook (chapter 4, p. 4-58) has detailed information on TAAs, including this:

ATC may clear aircraft direct to the fix labeled IF/IAF if the course
  to the IF/IAF is within the straight-in sector labeled “NoPT” and the
  intercept angle does not exceed 90 degrees. Pilots are expected to
  proceed direct to the IF/ IAF and accomplish a straight-in approach.
  Do not execute HILO course reversal. Pilots are also expected to fly
  the straight−in approach when ATC provides radar vectors and
  monitoring to the IF/IAF and issues a “straight-in” approach clearance;
  otherwise, the pilot is expected to execute the HILO course reversal.

But even if ATC vectors you to ACUBO they can't give you a straight-in clearance if your intercept angle is greater than 90 degrees (ATC Orders 4-8-1(d)
 and (e)).
You also asked in a comment what happens if ATC clears you for the approach without specifying the IAF. That's explained in the IPH:

On rare occasions, ATC may clear the aircraft for an approach at the
  airport without specifying the approach procedure by name or by a
  specific approach (e.g., “cleared RNAV Runway 34 approach”) without
  specifying a particular IAF. In either case, the pilot should proceed
  direct to the IAF or to the IF/IAF associated with the sector that the
  aircraft will enter the TAA and join the approach course from that
  point and if required by that sector (i.e., sector is not labeled
  “NoPT), complete the HILO course reversal.


text:
When is an aircraft considered dispatched?
When is an aircraft considered to be dispatched?
Before an aircraft is dispatched certain pieces of equipment must be operational on an aircraft.  If some equipment is found to be inoperative, a determination can be made of whether or not to dispatch based on the information found in the MEL or CDL.
After an aircraft has been dispatched, disposition of inoperative equipment would follow the guidance inside the AFM.
Simply put, at what point does the dispatcher / crew switch over from relying on the MEL / CDL to the AFM for guidance?  The pilot in command has the final authority to takeoff so I am not asking about equipment that are significant to the operation of the airplane.
I am interested in both FAA Part 121 airline operations, Part 135 charter operations and Part 91 flights.
Thanks

Good question, I'm interested in seeing if there is a CFR definition.  Just a comment though, while I have heard "dispatch" used as a verb, I don't recall hearing it in the past tense this way.  In my 135 operations we use the word "released" in this context, and the release comes in the form of a piece of paper faxed by the dispatcher.  With this in hand I would consider myself "dispatched".

Technically, before the aircraft is dispatched / released, everything can be inoperative.
However, most everything needs to be in working order to be dispatched / released, with exceptions as per the MEL / CDL.
MEL / CDL procedures are followed until the takeoff is commenced.
If an item is discovered to be missing or inoperative,
A) prior to door close
B) after door closed but prior to block out
C) after block out but prior to flight
there are specific MEL procedures to follow in each of those three scenarios.
Taking the runway and setting takeoff thrust / power is the act of commencing a takeoff.
After that point, equipment failures are treated as an in flight emergency, and flight crew follow QRH / AFM guidance. At that point the MEL no longer applies.
Applicable US FARs for Airline ops:
121.687 Dispatch Release - Flag or Domestic Operations
121.689 Flight Release - Supplemental Operations
135 has a similar regulation.
91k (fractional) does as well.
Plain Jane 91 owners/operators/pilots don't normally operate with an MEL. If they do, they have a letter of authorization with the FAA.

All turbine powered airplanes and airplanes with a MTOW above 12,500 lbs require a MEL.  Quite a few corporations have their own flight departments that operate strictly Part 91.

Whether you are flying part 121, 135 or 91, the crew, usually the captain,  upon arrival in the cockpit, will go through the tech log to make sure all reported defects have been repaired or deferred according to the MEL. They will also conduct a preflight inspection according to the AFM and company SOP, to make sure everything is in order. If further defects are found (let's say the DME isn't working), they will consult the MEL to establish whether they can dispatch, or whether it must be repaired before departure. There might be aeronautical constraints too depending on the nature of the flight (VFR or IFR, type of airspace which might require certain equipment). Look up P-RNAV and B-RNAV. Below is part of the P-RNAV and B-RNAV checklist for educational purposes. If any of those things are not present, you have to fix them or make sure you can dispatch without them.

B-RNAV (RNP-5) Aircraft certified for B-RNAV operations at ± 5.0 NM

Aircraft authorized B-RNAV in LOA or Ops Spec P-RNAV (RNP-1) Aircraft
certified for P-RNAV operations at ± 1.0 NM

Aircraft authorized P-RNAV in LOA or Ops Spec

Pilot(s) trained and authorized for P-RNAV

Aircraft Certification requires state of registry authorization per
TGL-10 for both B-RNAV (RNP-5) and P-RNAV (RNP-1)

Approved equipment

Approved navigational database

Approved MEL

Operational Approval requires Standard Operating Procedures for Normal operations

Contingency operations

Incident reporting

Flight crew training for P-RNAV (RNP-1) operations PREFLIGHT PLANNING

Confirm availability of necessary ground-based navigational aids (NOTAMS)

Confirm RAIM availability for GPS based RNAV systems

Determine need for dual P-RNAV (RNP-1)
      • For procedures below minimum obstacle clearance altitude
      • When no radar monitor is available for the approach

Here are the FAA rules (14 CFR - Part 121) regarding dispatch to service.
There doesn't appear to be a requirement for a dispatcher for part 135 or part 91.

That's a very thorough and informative answer as to what is required prior to dispatch, but it doesn't address the root question.  Is it issuance of the release form I mentioned in my comment to the OP?  (Or an electronic version for aircraft capable of this?)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why does Boeing name its aircraft B7x7 and Airbus names theirs A3x0?
Airbus and Boeing use this special naming scheme for their civilian aircraft models.
All Boeings built today are B7x7.
(In the past, also other numbers were used: the shortened version of a B707, the B727 and even older models like B367, B377 etc. )
Also, Airbus uses a common scheme: A3x0, though there a few numbers outside this scheme: A318/19/21
(Both manufacturers also build military aircrafts with different schemes, like A400M.)
So, is there a special reason for these naming schemes, or is is just that they sound good and unique?

Boeing doesn't actually name its aircraft B7x7 -- just 7x7. In contrast, the A in Airbus models is part of the model name Airbus itself uses.

I remember hearing that the first Airbus was called A300 because it could fit 300 passengers. Then, they just incremented the second digit from there.

Yes, they followed Boeing in that. Now the single digits are shorter or longer versions of a basic type, and the steps in tens are for the new types. But this is not wholly consistent, or we would have seen an A339 and an A341.

Airbus started with the A300, which as usernumber commented was a 300-seat airliner design. So A for Airbus, and 300 for the number of seats. An A250 was also considered (guess how many seats), which became the A300B. The models counted up by 10 from there.
Boeing model numbers historically counted up, including the Model 40, Model 80, Model 247, Model 307 Stratoliner and Model 377 Stratocruiser. At the dawn of the jet age, they decided to change up their numbering scheme:

To support this diversification strategy, the engineering department divided the model numbers into blocks of 100 for each of the new product areas: 300s and 400s continued to represent aircraft, 500s would be used on turbine engines, 600s for rockets and missiles and 700s were set aside for jet transport aircraft.

The 707 prototype was called the 367-80, or "Dash 80." When the time came to give it an official number they knew it was going to be a "Jet Transport" and would get a 700-series number, and they decided "707" had a better sound to it than "700". They kept the 7's and have counted up from there (not entirely in order).

it's also mentioned that models linked to the number 7 historically did well.  this may have affected their decision to add the 7 to the end of the model number as well.

Now the Asian customers are the most promising, and aircraft numbers are chosen with Chinese superstition in mind. 8 is a lucky number in China, and that's why the A380 did not become the A350 (which would have been the next number in the line), and the newest 747 is the 747-8.

There's also a bit of oddness with the 717: Originally, it referred to the C-135 series of military aircraft, which were also developed from the Dash 80 (the 707 and C-135 are basically siblings with the Dash 80 as the common ancestor, though the C-135 predates the 707). However, when they bought McDonnell Douglas, they decided to reuse 717 for the MD-95, which is what it mostly refers to today.

@PeterKämpf - Might that explain the 787 as well?  I wonder if Boeing will switch to the 800s after they run out of 7s (there's on 797 left I think...).  I'd love to fly on a Boeing 808 just because it be the most banging plane ever with the fattest bass you've ever heard.

@JayCarr They can also easily change the scheme completely, and call it Boeing B7 (or B8, or whatever)

@JayCarr: No, the 787 was next in line after the 777. But you can see in their "Dreamliner" name where they intend to go long term. No more technical names - all will be dominated by Marketing, including the airplane names.

Very true, @PeterKämpf, however, I'd think that Boeing has quite a bit of name recognition built into 7x7, and they'd be silly to throw it away. Of course, that really doesn't leave them may options for new plane names...

Freeman, do they really need more than 10 different aircraft though?  They could easy start recycling and use it simply as 707 = smallest through to 797 = largest

@JonStory There are still 707 aircraft in service. It's also a very iconic model to be recycling. Same for 727. And then we're in trouble because most of the other models are still in production.

That didn't stop Boeing replacing the 737 with the surprisingly different 737-NG


text:
Can a GA headset be used for listening to normal audio or with a cell phone?
I own an older but still nice noise-cancelling general aviation headset from Denali, with the two-plug adapter.
I wonder if I can/shall repurpose it.  For example, I now have to take a number of international flights, 14 hours as a sardine...  not fun.  Does a GA headset make for a good entertainment and silence headset?  Or, I could use the GA headset for phone calls from my Android cell phone.
Good idea / bad idea?

I think 14 hours wearing the weight of a typical GA headset would be worse :-) This seems like it will be an opinion-based question, but I think a GA headset is just too heavy and bulky to be practical on long flights, it would be better to spend $50 (or whatever) on a small, light noise-cancelling set for travel.

In general, I think this would be opinion based, but the "use it as a headset for my phone" portion is answerable. In answer-ish - I believe there are adapters made.

I actually know a guy that does this. He bought a nice noise canceling headset but then stopped flying and now he uses it on long flights and quite enjoys it. For what its worth noise canceling headphones have come down in price over the years and you may simply be able to sell the headset and buy a less bulky set of headphones for the money you make. But if you dont want to go through the hassle then there is nothing stopping you from using aside from having a boom mic dangling off it.
For what its worth a lot of noise canceling headphones now have mic inputs as well so you can answer calls from them as well.


text:
Is it possible to log IFR currency in a flight simulator without an instructor?
A flight simulator system company has a system that they say lets you "Log IFR Currency without an Instructor." Can someone explain to me how exactly that works?
Does that mean that an Instrument rated pilot only needs a simulator to stay current?
Note: I am not a pilot so I don't know about currency requirements. I'm just curious.

Got a link? I'm very intrigued and very skeptical.

Looks like the FAA has an NPRM out to remove the instructor requirement and extend the interval to six months (from two): https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/05/12/2016-10168/regulatory-relief-aviation-training-devices-pilot-certification-training-and-pilot-schools-and-other

You should specify which country you are asking about. Certification rules are different around the world.

UPDATE: 83 FR 30232, updated the requirements of 61.51(g) where an instructor is NO LONGER required to be present in order to log time in a flight simulator or aviation training device for instrument currency. Note that an instructor is still required in order to log simulator time that counts towards a rating or certificate and that a FAA approved device must be used. This particular change was effective July 27, 2018.

The following is no longer accurate, but retained for historical purposes:
There has been quite a bit of confusion in this area due to language in a preamble to the 2009 Final rule on Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification, which implied that an instructor was not required for instrument currency and 14 CFR 61.51(g)(4) which says that an instructor must be present. I believe this all started with an email to John King of King Schools, where Lance Nuckolls at AFS-810 stated:

...approved uses for a BATD and an
  AATD are governed by § 61.4(c) and the LOA. The LOA states that an
  authorized instructor must certify the instructional use. Simply
  satisfying the requirements of § 61.57(c)(2) is not considered
  instructional use, therefore an authorized instructor does not need to
  be present.

(Emphasis added)
Interestingly enough, the PDF of this email is no longer available on the King Schools website. Instead users are redirected to the Rebird TD page where it now implies that an instructor is required to maintain instrument currency.  A copy of the message text is available here.
Of course, this was too much of a good thing, so someone had to get the lawyers involved! In Keller (2010), the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel made their opinion known:

...in order to log the time an instructor must be present to observe
  an individual using a flight training device or flight simulator to
  maintain instrument recency experience.

This position was reasserted in Stewart (2014), which references the Keller letter and explicitly cites 14 CFR 61.51(g)(4).
So we now have a situation where the FAA doesn't agree with itself! Whose opinion wins?  The lawyers', of course! In Perry (2010), the Chief Counsel's office states:

...where two interpretations address an identical scenario and reach
  an inconsistent result, the interpretation issued by the Assistant
  Chief counsel for Regulations takes precedence.

Some additional background:
I believe the author is referring to the Redbird Flight Simulations' FAA approval page where it states:

When using the Redbird to maintain instrument currency an instructor
  is not required to be present. This has been discussed with and
  confirmed by AFS-810. A current Instrument pilot is not required to
  have an instructor on board the real aircraft to log approaches in
  IMC, therefore it follows that the FAA trusts a pilot to correctly log
  an approach preformed in the Redbird.

On its face, this statement appears to be in direct conflict with FAA's legal interpretation. Of course, one could try challenging this position (an interpretation is an opinion, after all), but it won't be me!

Recent changes to the rules just took effect.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/june/27/faa-cuts-cost-of-training-proficiency

14 CFR §61.51   Pilot logbooks. (g) Logging instrument time. (5) A
  person may use time in a full flight simulator, flight training
  device, or aviation training device for satisfying instrument recency
  experience requirements provided a logbook or training record is
  maintained to specify the training device, time, and the content.

Welcome to aviation.SE. Please do not answer simply posting a link, link can rot away and the answer would be no more useful. please edit it to include the relevant information here.

Note that your PC flight sim doesn’t qualify, but many flight schools have a simulator that qualifies as an aviation training device (ATD) and can be used for training and currency.

(2018) Here is my Canadian interpretation after recently posting some guidelines on Logging “Instrument Time” for IFR Recency Requirements. I was initially told that an "IFR rated" pilot needs an instructor with them in the simulator to log “ground” instrument time. I could not see the logic in having an instructor in the seat beside you when you can fly in actual IMC without an instructor. I therefore indicated that you only needed an instructor with you if you were under “training” or getting your "Instrument Proficiency Check" in order to log ground instrument time.
It is fairly obvious that an instructor is expected to be with you when you are conducting "IFR training" and to get credit for this ground instrument time, but if you are an "IFR rated" pilot you don’t need an instructor. You can be alone or with another pilot.
As a result of this feedback, I further checked and found out that the FAA have changed their interpretation of their regulations in 2010. They have certified the Redbird as an Advanced Aircraft Simulation Device (AATD) and confirmed that you can log your IFR recency requirements without an instructor. This is a US interpretation, so I don’t believe Transport Canada has caught up with the new definitions of BATD and AATD, nor the current simulator technology.
I also wrote to Redbird Flight Simulations, Inc. to confirm the FAA legally approved uses of the RedBird FMX as well as this new interpretation. Their reply is as follows (this was quoted in the previous comment):
**On August 21, 2009 in the initial notice of changes to the Federal Register, there was conflicting language in CFR 61.51(g)(4) between the preamble and the rule making itself as to whether an instructor must be present in order to log approaches for instrument recency experience. On August 6, 2010, an opinion by Neal O’Hara, Attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief Counsel and distributed by Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulation specified that when there is a discrepancy between the preamble and the rule, the rule will govern and as such, would require an instructor to be present. However, due to the conflicting language the issue was forwarded back to Flight Standards Service for review and comment.
After this occurred, John King of King Schools (and a reseller of Redbird products) contacted Flight Standards Service to clarify the conflicting language. In an opinion returned to John King on November 3, 2010, Flight Standards agreed that the language specifies that instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot certificate, rating, or instrument recency experience requires an authorized instructor sign the person’s logbook or training record to verify the time and the content of the training session. Per Flight Standards, the operative term is “training session”. Their interpretation is that a person, who is current, logging the time and experience necessary to maintain instrument recency experience (CFR 61.57(c)(2)) is not a “training session”. Therefore, CFR 61.51(g)(4) does not apply to an instructor being present for instrument recency. Furthermore, according to Flight Standards, the LOA (Letter of Authorization) for the AATD states that an authorized instructor must certify instructional use. Satisfying the requirements of CFR 61.57(c)(2) is not considered instructional use, therefore an authorized instructor does not need to be present.*
I have attached a link below that will give you the full text of the communication between John King and Lance Nuckolls of Flight Standards.*
http://www.kingschools.com/flight-simulators/redbird/docs/approved-instrument-recency-experience-without-a-flight-instructor.pdf
Subsequently, based on this information and no information from the FAA since the publication of this information on November 3, 2010 that conflicts with this interpretation, we still are of the opinion that as long as a pilot has not exceeded the 6-month window, instrument recency may be logged without an instructor present.
Here is my summary for logging your “instrument time” for recency. In each situation you must be operating the aircraft or approved simulator solely by reference to the flight instruments.
Actual Flight instrument time

This is your time spent in cloud, smoke, fog, haze, mist or dark night conditions when you don’t have any horizon or lights for visual reference to the ground during an actual flight in non-VFR conditions.
If you are in these non-VFR conditions, you will obviously have to be on an IFR Flight Plan to be legal.
If you are in non-VFR conditions for the entire flight you can only take credit for up to the maximum Air Time ( up – down), not the entire Flight Time. You are not flying solely on instruments while taxiing.

Simulated Flight instrument time

This is your time spent simulating cloud, smoke, fog, haze, mist or dark night without an horizon or without visual reference to the ground during an actual flight and in VFR conditions.
You are expected to have a safety pilot with you and to use a view limiting device or hood in order to get credit for logging this simulated flight instrument time.
The safety pilot will also be your instructor when you are conducting IFR training in order to get credit for logging this simulated flight instrument time. You are allowed to log it, and your instructor (PIC) is also allowed to log it.
You can only take credit for the time that you are simulating instrument conditions. This may be less than the Air Time depending upon when you start and stop flying by sole reference to the flight instruments.

Ground instrument time

This is your time spent simulating non-VFR conditions on a simulated IFR flight in an approved flight simulator training device (FSTD).
An instructor is expected to be with you when you are conducting IFR training in order to get credit for this ground instrument time, but if you are an IFR rated pilot you don’t need an instructor. You can be alone or with another pilot.
If you are in non-VFR conditions for the entire flight you can only take credit for up to the maximum simulator Air Time (up – down), not the total simulator Flight Time. Also remove the time the simulator is paused during the simulated flight.

The King Schools link is broken.


text:
Do airlines continue operating in the vicinity of a hurricane?
Have hung around some of the aviation interest groups (like airliners.net) and tried to research this but haven't found very clear answers.
Typically when a hurricane (tropical, peak wind-speed in excess of 100 mph) makes landfall, it sheds most of it's energy and water near the coast-line, however the rainfall and wind-speed heat-map (that is elevated beyond the seasonal average) may be over a very large area. Also a hurricane might move at a speed such that the weather conditions might change the large area (covered by the heat-map) over 2-3 days.
So, my questions in view of the above understanding are:

Whether normal flight operations continue (barring the to/from the airports that are directly under the hurricane path), in this vast other region that is part of the heatmap? (Say with airports in areas showing rainfall up to 3 inches, and windspeeds upto 50-60 mph.)
If commercial airlines do operate in such weather, what should I expect the ride to be like?
What are the chances of such flights being diverted?

Here is the WebCite archived webpage (so this link won't go away) of Weather.com that I am referring to.
PS. I plan to take a flight from Bangalore to Delhi to Kathmandu, on Monday, as the tropical cyclone (as it is called here in Indian subcontinent) is about to make landfall on the eastern coast of India around noon, and we are expecting upto 3 inches of rainfall and winds upto 60mph here on Monday morning.
I wanted to see if I should seriously consider rescheduling flights. A call to my airline customer-care yielded no useful information, and they seemed rather clueless. I read in the local newspaper that train services are being shutdown in the affected area, although it seems to be more like trains that pass through the area with the maximum impact.

The cross-wind limit is 35-40 knots for most aircraft with gusts allowed to perhaps 45 or so. The head-wind limit is slightly higher, but not much.
Knot is nautical mile per hour. Nautical mile is 1.852 km, that is 1.15 mile (and for those who prefer metric, knot is just a bit over ½ m/s). So wind more than 40 miles/hour may interrupt airport operations and wind more than 50 miles/hour likely will. If the wind is aligned well with the runways, 60–70 miles/hour can be tolerated, but it usually becomes too gusty at that point and prevent operations anyway. I don't think there is a specific limit for rain; it is generally not a big problem if the runways are in good condition.
Problem is that good local forecasts are possible for at most around 24 hours. So it's not possible to tell whether it is likely there will be disruption of operations the day after tomorrow.
For one day ahead, the airport forecasts are publicly available on the internet. Search for TAF ("terminal aerodrome forecast") with the ICAO (the 4-letter one) code of the airport. They are published in strange abbreviations, but there are sites that will happily decode it for you.

Thanks Jan, for the perfect answer. Typing this from the Mumbai airport :) and flights are on. The east coast (of India) though, has started taking the pounding!

Might I add that that's an amazing tip - search for TAF & the ICAO code! Just looked it up, and been reading all about it past 15 minutes. Thanks again.


text:
What can be logged as Total Time?
The FAA regulates logging time in FAR 61.51. There are plenty of questions about logging PIC time, as well as SIC time. Another type remains: what can be logged as total time? It's only mentioned once:

Total flight time or lesson time.

It is clear that any time logged as dual, PIC, or SIC can be logged as total time. Is total time merely the sum of those, minus any overlap, or is there a situation where total time can be logged but none of the others?
In particular, two situations arise:

I'm at the controls of an aircraft I'm not rated for (i.e. an ASEL pilot in the right seat of a multi-engine aircraft, where the other pilot is appropriately rated and not a CFI). I can't log PIC, SIC, or dual - but can I log total time?
In a plane I'm rated for, I pass the controls to a non-certificated passenger. I'm not a CFI. I cannot log PIC, SIC, or dual while my passenger is the sole manipulator of the controls, but I am acting as the PIC for this portion of the flight. Can I log this as total time?

"Total time" isn't an officially defined term as far as I know. Most people seem to use it to mean "total flight time", i.e. the total of their PIC, SIC and flight training time (excluding simulator training).
In general, you can log and count whatever you want in your logbook provided that you log at least the items required in 61.51(a):

(a) Training time and aeronautical experience. Each person must
  document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the
  Administrator:
(1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements
  for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.
(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight
  experience requirements of this part.

So, the bottom line is that "total time" is whatever you want it to be, and if you want to log 'fun time' in aircraft that you aren't qualified to fly then go ahead; the time just won't count for anything as far as the FAA is concerned.
As for your two scenarios:

You can't log any 'FAA time' because you're not certified to fly the
aircraft as PIC or SIC, and you aren't receiving training. You might note it in your logbook for your own reasons but you can't count it towards anything for the FAA's purposes.
You can't log 'FAA time' here either, for the reasons you mentioned. You're acting PIC for the entire flight, of course, but acting as PIC doesn't automatically let you log PIC unless other conditions are met. 61.51(e) lists all the ways you can log PIC time, e.g. sole manipulator, acting as PIC when more than one crewmember is required.

Ad 2, being PIC and logging PIC are two different things. Logging PIC is really more logging PF. If I remember the other answers around this correctly, in this case you are PIC, but can't log it.

I downvoted this answer because it strongly implies that logging PIC time is related to acting as PIC. It is not.

I have now upvoted this answer; thanks for editing it to clarify :)

@TannerSwett No problem, thanks for helping me to improve it!

There is a difference between total flight time and total time.  The FARs do not define total time but they do define a term called pilot time.

61.1: Pilot time means that time in which a person—
      (i) Serves as a required pilot flight crewmember;
      (ii) Receives training from an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device; or
      (iii) Gives training as an authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.

Total flight time is defined as

1.1: Flight time means:
  (1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing; or
  (2) For a glider without self-launch capability, pilot time that commences when the glider is towed for the purpose of flight and ends when the glider comes to rest after landing.

61.51 deals with logging time.  In your first example, the airplane is type certificated for a single pilot, you are not performing any operation requiring more than one pilot (i.e. safety pilot) so you cannot log PIC, SIC.  I might log pilot time but not total flight time.
In your second example, while the non rated friend is flying you cannot log PIC or total flight time but may be able to log pilot time.
You only need to worry about total time when applying for an ATP certificate as that certificate calls for total time not total flight time.

BEST ANSWER - "Total-time" as in a "total" of your subsets of flight-time.
Padding the total without a subset creates a false/fraudulent representation of your experience. (A false entry becomes fraud after you deceive someone with it).
Once found out you could be sued for wages and training costs.  You would definitely be a scapegoat in the event of an accident.
By definition this is not "pilot-time" "flight-time" nor "aeronautical-experience"(14 CFR 61.1).
The FAA previously ruled that since false entries were "capable of influencing" decisions pilot logbooks need to be free of "knowing misrepresentations of fact". (Cassis v. Helms)
Finally, I would caution you not to forget that in 61.51(a) the FAA placed the catch all phrase "in a manner acceptable to the Administrator".  Just like the term "careless and reckless" it is subjective enough to warrant restraint.

In "wbeard52"'s answer he seems to state you can log "Pilot Time" when you are not PIC or SIC..I am confused by his response.  But to be clear you should note that one is either PIC, SIC, Student or a passenger. A passenger by definition cannot log pilot time, flight time or aeronautical experience).  "Pilot Time" as defined by 61.1 will not allow you to log time unless you are part of a required flight crew...I am not talking about the insurance company or the CEO's requirement for two pilots. Their desire is not a requirement per the FAA. Per regs, Other than in a training environment, the ONLY time you can log "pilot time" in an aircraft is if you are crew as defined by the type certificate or applicable FAA regs.
I wouldn’t be so quick to designate between FAA time vs some BS unsubstantiated total-time.  Logically if it is wrong to put forth a false record to the FAA then it is equally wrong to put forth a false record of experience to an employer or the public.
CFR 61.59(2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook, record, or report that is required to be kept, made, or used to show compliance with any requirement for the issuance or exercise of the privileges of any certificate, rating, or authorization under this part;
Simplified: ANY fraudulent or intentionally false entry in ANY report used to show compliance with ANY requirement for the exercise of the privileges..
“any report” does not exclude non-FAA reports such as a resume, or an insurance form.
“any requirement” does not exclude non-FAA requirements such as insurance or  employer requirements.
CFR 61.133 and 61.113 both define the “privilege” of the respective certificates as acting as pilot
In a nut shell, if you assert an unsubstantiated level of aeronautical experience in order to fly, then you are likely in violation of the FARs.

The the extent that a logbook used to show compliance is a federal document... 18 U.S. Code § 1001 concerning false statements and entries might be applied.. "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact" $250,000 fine / 5 years.  Fortunately the FAA rarely steps out of their internal regs though I believe they could.

The interpretation of "Total Time" I've always seen is the sum of all the other categories. That is, your "total time" should be the sum of your PIC/SIC/Instruction (not as PIC/SIC) time. That said, it's your logbook, you can log whatever you want as "total time" (e.g. if your airline co-pilot has the fish & you get called up to sit right seat you can log that as "total time" if you wish - just not as one of the categories that "counts" under the regs: PIC/SIC/Instruction Received etc.)

Note that your second example is a different situation:

In a plane I'm rated for, I pass the controls to a non-certificated passenger. I'm not a CFI. I cannot log PIC, SIC, or dual while my passenger is the sole manipulator of the controls, but I am acting as the PIC for this portion of the flight. Can I log this as total time?

You are acting as PIC in this situation. Who is manipulating the controls is irrelevant: As your passenger is not rated to act as PIC of airplane carrying passengers you must be filling that role. You would therefore log PIC time in this case (you cannot however log it as "dual given", nor can your passenger log it as "dual received", because you are not a CFI).
This is also true if your passenger holds a student pilot certificate, or a certificate for a different category/class of aircraft (e.g. if they have a rotorcraft certificate they still can't be PIC of an airplane - they are not rated for that category of aircraft).

Your second part is incorrect. In this case, he is indeed the PIC, but you can only log time as sole manipulator of the flight controls in an aircraft in which you are rated. Since the controls were handed off to someone else, even though they are the PIC, the time may not be logged as such.

Lnafziger is correct with his comment.

Yes, you are acting as pilot in command in that situation... but you can't log it as pilot in command.  $61.51(e)(1)(i).

So you can log PIC acting as a safety pilot, (with a rated pilot flying) but not acting as PIC with non pilot flying?  That seems backwards.  And illogical... if the non pilot can NOT log PIC time as sole manipulator, (assuming you are not a CFI) then the airplane is technically flying with NO PILOT IN COMMAND!

@MichaelHall  There is a difference between acting as pilot in command and logging PIC time.  It isn't semantics and many pilots unintentionally falsify their logbooks because they don't know the difference.

@wbear52, being required to act as PIC but not allowed to log it makes as much sense as going to work but not completing a timecard.  (But if you aren't allowed to log it, then it can't be considered compensation, so...)

@MichaelHall That is an interesting idea.


text:
When do conditions permit doing a controlled fly-by over the runway of a commercial airport?
A lot of people reading this probably saw Top Gun and remember Maverick performing a fly-by over the deck of the USS Enterprise (in spite of being explicitly ordered not to do so), or saw air shows where aerobatic pilots do all kinds of cool maneuvers for the entertainment of the people on the ground.
What I didn't know was possible is that a commercial aircraft with passengers on board would be allowed to perform such maneuver over an active civilian airport (you can find the video here). The video shows the last approach and landing of a commercial pilot before retirement, in which he's allowed to perform a fly-by over the runway of Jorge Newbery airport in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Throughout the video you can hear other pilots over the radio saluting the pilot who is about to retire, and near the end you can see the passengers applaud and airport and airline personnel on the taxi runway welcoming the aircraft. It's a pretty emotional video even for someone like me who's not related in any way to the aviation community, you should see it if you can spare a couple of minutes.
Anyway, I know that there are certain traditions involved in the last flight of a pilot before retirement but I didn't know that a flyby was one of them. In order obey the rules of this site, the main question I'm asking here is:

What would be the right circumstances where a stunt like this would be allowed?

But I would also like to know if this kind of maneuver has ever been performed on similar circumstances over airports with more traffic or using a bigger aircraft.

I remember a crash where a flyby went wrong and the deaths lead to flights solely for flybys not allowing any passengers on board

@ratchetfreak Was that Air France 296?

Essentially a flyby over the runway is nothing more than a planned and prepared go-around from a low altitude. If you say it is a stunt then it probably is not allowed under most legislations. And because of noise regulations airports aren't too happy with the manoeuvre either.
However, nobody will stop you from going around if you "forget" to put your gear down.
I have been in the cockpit on several flybys at several airports, all of them were dressed like a missed approach / go-around along the following lines:

Pilot > "Tower, Hotshot01, requesting permission for a flyby over runway XX
Tower > Negative Hotshot01, you know we can't allow that any longer due to noise restrictions. I can't prevent you from making a go around though! Cleared to land RWY XX.
Pilot > Hmm... ok, cleared to land, Hotshot01

<Hotshot 01 approaches the threshold and applies full power>

Pilot > Hotshot01, going around.
Tower > You owe me a beer now! .. <vectors back to final approach / final destination>

It must have been a long time ago if they were still using Roman numerals for the runways! :-D

@DavidRicherby LOL! I am not going to change that now :-)

Heh, is that RWY XX Sinistro or Dextro?

"However, nobody will stop you from going around if you forget to put you gear down."  I'm busting a gut over here.  I think we need some quotes around "forget" though.


text:
Are two people required in cockpit at all times on large commercial aircraft?
It would seem reasonable on large commercial airlines to require that there be two people in the cockpit at all times. For example when the pilot goes to the toilet a member of the cabin crew must enter the cockpit until the pilot's return. Such a rule would greatly reduce the probability of pilots being locked out and reduce problems should they be locked out. Do any airlines enforce such a rule?

That's great unless the captain and the purser are in cahoots. They could still lock the first officer out.

@Freeman - Agreed, that's why I said "reduce problems". I don't think there's any way we can completely eliminate them.

Looks like two people in the cockpit at all times is about to become the rule: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/26/airlines-change-cockpit-rules-after-co-pilot-blamed-for-germanwings-crash

EDIT: please see at the bottom of the answer the update from EASA

Are two people required in cockpit at all times on large commercial aircraft?

No.
From EASA, pag. 101-102: (emphasis mine)

CAT.OP.MPA.210 Crew members at stations
Flight crew members

During take-off and landing each flight crew member required to be on duty in the flight crew compartment shall be at the assigned station.

During all other phases of flight each flight crew member required to be on duty in the flight crew compartment shall remain at the assigned station, unless absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation or for physiological needs, provided at least one suitably qualified pilot remains at the controls of the aircraft at all times.

During all phases of flight each flight crew member required to be on duty in the flight crew compartment shall remain alert. If a lack of alertness is encountered, appropriate countermeasures shall be used. If unexpected fatigue is experienced, a controlled rest procedure, organised by the commander, may be used if workload permits. Controlled rest taken in this way shall not be considered to be part of a rest period for purposes of calculating flight time limitations nor used to justify
any extension of the duty period.

Do any airlines enforce such a rule?

As other answers mention, yes.

EDIT: On the 27th March 2015 EASA has issued the following Safety Information Bulletin :

operators are recommended to implement procedures requiring at least two persons authorised in accordance with CAT.GEN.MPA.135 to be in the flight crew compartment at all times, or other equivalent mitigating measures to address risks identified by the operator’s revised assessment.

This still does not mean that 2 people are required, but are recommended.

This only partially answers the question - EASA is only one of many possible safety regulators, and it may be that some airlines have such a rule even though not legally required.

Nate's second possibility is, in fact, the case. Some airlines do this, at least in the U.S., though it isn't required by a reg.

Thanks for the answer and thank goodness things are about to change: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/26/airlines-change-cockpit-rules-after-co-pilot-blamed-for-germanwings-crash

@raptortech97 the question is about "large commercial aircraft", airlines can require stuff  only for their flights.

@Federico The question also specifically asks "Do any airlines enforce such a rule?" While it's not a legal/regulatory requirement, it is a requirement at some airlines.

@reirab then you can say that my answer is partial, I do not see how it is possibly wrong: it is not required at all times on large commercial aircraft because EASA does not require it and not all airlines enforce such a rule, hence the answer to Are two people required in cockpit at all times on large commercial aircraft? is No [only on some, not all at all times].

@Federico you're right, especially after the edit you made. I've removed my down vote.

For the sake of completeness for future references to this page, you might add that the temporary EASA recommendation was directly a result of the Germanwings flight 4U9525 accident ... "The Agency makes this recommendation based on the information currently available following the dramatic accident of the Germanwings flight 4U9525..." (https://easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/press-releases/easa-recommends-minimum-two-crew-cockpit)

@Porcupine911 I added it 3 hours before your comment

@Federico, I meant that you didn't add why the recommendation was made.

@Porcupine911 that's not relevant.

@Federico, I think it is relevant since it is a temporary measure, but it's your  answer so I'm done.

At least Finnair requires that there's two people in the cockpit at all times. I think (so I've heard) Lufthansa made this mandatory too after the crash.

It's not required by a regulation, but, yes, it is required by the procedures of some airlines, at least in the U.S.

A flight attendant taking the seat of an absent pilot to ensure there are always two people in the cockpit, and/or blocking access to the open door with a trolley, are often seen on US flights, but not necessarily on others, Hansford said. For instance it is not a requirement on Australian flights.

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/26/germanwings-crash-safety-of-cockpit-doors-on-all-planes-questioned
I've also heard numerous U.S. airline passengers claim to have witnessed this frequently, though I don't recall having seen it personally.

This is a requirement at my airline (a US carrier).

@Porcupine911 Any chance you could edit in a quote from your operating procedures into the answer or are those considered proprietary? Either way, thanks for the input!

Sorry, @reirab but it's not allowed.

I flew on Southwest the day after the Germanwings incident and noticed that a flight attendant entered the cabin while pilot left to use the restroom. Not sure if this was in response to the incident or part of normal operations though.

@JeffBridgman I'm pretty sure this was done commonly in the U.S. long before the Germanwings incident, though I'm not sure about SWA specifically. I'd be surprised if any airlines have changed their operating procedures this quickly, though, so I'd guess that procedure was already in place on Southwest.

It might be worth saying that the acting requirement likely comes from airline compliance with the TSA's requirements, not the FAA's, and the TSA involves a level of secrecy. I was interested in the motivation behind the rule, and although I didn't find it per se, I did find this discussion from 2012: http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/478487-2-pilot-aircraft-leaving-flight-deck.html

It is now the law for Australian flights to have two persons in the cockpit at any one time -- for RPT services with 50 or more seats.

The FAA has very similar rules about flight crewmembers leaving their station.

§121.543   Flight crewmembers at controls.
...
(b) A required flight crewmember may leave the assigned duty station—
(1) If the crewmember's absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft;
(2) If the crewmember's absence is in connection with physiological needs; or
(3) If the crewmember is taking a rest period, and relief is provided—...

It goes on to describe the requirements of a relief crewmember, but this is only if the pilot is taking a "rest period".

The "Two Crewmember Rule" has been mandatory for all US passenger airlines since 9/11 as well as for all foreign airline flights in and out of the US.The only exceptions are a few very small commuter airlines that fly single-pilot in Cessna 402s and Caravans and Piper Chieftains in remote places like Alaska, Hawaii and the V.I. (and Nantucket!).

Please cite a source (such as an applicable FAR) for such a requirement.


text:
Are ETOPS rated planes denoted by a placard or other indicator?
A recent AA flight to Hawaii was not ETOPS rated.
(alternate article)
Apparently the failures that led to this mistake occurred on multiple levels, including the schedulers who scheduled this equipment, and the dispatcher who may have prepped the flight plan.
My question is if the crew had a means and responsibility to know if the plane was ETOPS certified?   Would there be a placard for similar indicator in the cockpit stating "ETOPS allowed" (or perhaps "No ETOPS allowed")?
Are parts of the checklist different for ETOPS/non-ETOPS aircraft?
Can the crew reasonably expect to fly whatever plane they're assigned without checking over every piece of the certification, maintenance, and dispatch?

I had to subscribe to read the article you cited. Is it possible to find a source for the article that is not behind a subscription wall?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/13/politics/american-airlines-hawaii-airbus-a321s/

If it isn't required, I bet that they will start doing it now!

From your linked article: "American Airlines would not say what caused the mistake. But Norton said that immediately after it occurred, the airline upgraded the software on the plane so that “the correct aircraft is identified to fly the correct route.”  That seems to indicate that the software must display some indication that the plane is ETOPS.

@JPhi1618: That is, assuming you trust a major news source to report aviation news accurately.  They frequently get factual points wrong.

@abelenky Heh, that's very true.  Here I would be expecting them to report aviation facts as well as software/computer facts.  That's like a perfect storm for a misleading/incorrect quote.  Didn't think about it that way.

Related, possible duplicate: Why is there an ETOPS marking on the nosewheel door?

According to FAA §25.1535 Appendix K,

The airplane flight manual must contain the following information applicable to the ETOPS type design approval:
(b) Required markings or placards.
(e) This statement: “The type-design reliability and performance of this airplane-engine combination has been evaluated under 14 CFR 25.1535 and found suitable for (identify maximum approved diversion time) extended operations (ETOPS) when the configuration, maintenance, and procedures standard contained in (identify the CMP document) are met. The actual maximum approved diversion time for this airplane may be less based on its most limiting system time capability. This finding does not constitute operational approval to conduct ETOPS.”

It does not require any identification marking on the aircraft itself, though as @woakley5 noted above, a number of aircraft do have them identifying the aircraft as ETOPS certified, like below.

Source: www.thaiflight.com
I'm not sure about if any indications are there in cockpit (there are no regulatory requirements, till today that is), but won't be surprised if it is available (in some aircraft, at least).
The ETOPS do have some additional checks. According to Appendix G to Part 135,

(This) This ETOPS maintenance program must include the following elements:
(b) ETOPS pre-departure service check. The certificate holder must develop a pre-departure check tailored to their specific operation.
(1) The certificate holder must complete a pre-departure service check immediately before each ETOPS flight.
(2) At a minimum, this check must:
(i) Verify the condition of all ETOPS Significant Systems;
(ii) Verify the overall status of the airplane by reviewing applicable maintenance records; and
(iii) Include an interior and exterior inspection to include a determination of engine and APU oil levels and consumption rates.

I'm not sure how the AA Flight 31 Flight and ground crew missed these checks.

Unless I am missing something (I'm no expert), none of those checks fundamentally sound like something that could not be done on a Non-ETOPS plane of the same model. After all, those same ETOPS significant systems would be in place on the non-certified planes. I'd imaging the maintenance records and fuel checks may be basically the same too. If there was no "Check for the ETOPS decal" step in the pre-flight service check, it seems quite feasible that the plane passed those checks without noticing it was not certified.

It does not require any identification marking on the aircraft itself Then what does (b) Required markings or placards mean?

@TomMcW The markings or placards are supposed to be in Flight Manual, while the question asked about markings in cockpit.

@aeroalias Generally the term "placards" refers to things that are required to be labeled in the cockpit (often in a specific location or "in full view of the pilot(s)") - the placards are listed in the POH (or AFM), but if the sticker/plate is not present in the cockpit the placard is missing (and the aircraft is technically not airworthy). e.g. the Piper Cherokee requires a placard "adjacent to upper door latch" which says ENGAGE LATCH BEFORE FLIGHT, and one "in full view of the pilot" with Va (maneuvering speed) on it.

ETOPS aircraft usually will have an indication on the front nose gear doors like this picture.
I believe that an indication is given in the cockpit also on some type of aircraft info placard but I have no image to back this up. I am certain that the airlines dispatch computer system will have some sort of tag as to whether an aircraft is ETOPS rated.

Should the crew be looking for that indicator on their preflight?

+1 on @abelenky comment. What is the purpose of ETOPS marking outside the flight deck?

And what does "ETOPS 940" mean?

It means that the aircraft is rated for 940 minutes ETOPS operation.

@woakley5: I doubt that a 757 can stay in flight for 940 minutes...

@MartinSchröder I don't believe that a 757 would be rated at ETOPS 940 for that reason

Sure it can, @MartinSchröder, it's one of those new ones certified for in-flight refueling, right?  ;)

@FreeMan: Yeah. SYD <-> NYC non-stop. :-)

940 is the equipment number, in this case what US Airways used to uniquely id the aircraft.

It is traditional to paint a part of the registration number on the nosewheel for identification purposes. Many airlines paint the last two digits, however US airlines tend to paint the numerical part of the reg. In this case, this aircraft appears to be N940UW:  https://www.planelogger.com/Aircraft/View?registration=N940UW&DeliveryDate=25.09.06

DGCA India CAR Section 8 Series C Part I Para 5.1.2 (h) states: "A procedure is to be established, through cock-pit placard / external marking, to indicate to maintenance and flight crew EDTO status of the aeroplane"


text:
Do airports charge airlines for extra time spent on ground due to weather conditions?
I heard somewhere that airlines pay the airport depending on the time spent at the gate. Suppose there are weather conditions that cause the aircraft to be delayed at the gate, such as heavy rain lasting few minutes, snow requiring half the runway to be closed to remove the snow, and so on.
What happen in those exceptional conditions? Does the airport still charge the airline for all the time spent at the gate? Is there special tariff for exceptional weather conditions?

The correct answer may differ for each pair (airline, airport) and can be found in the contract that they mutually agreed upon. Such contracts are mostly seen as a business secret, and most of their contents are not known to the general public.
As far as I know, both parties agree to do their best to keep everything working during every weather. Which means that there has to be enough equipment to clear a runway really quick, such that these "penalties" are "background noise" in the overall bill, even compared to the penalties caused by other reasons. The airport may decide not to bill the airline most of these penalties, as long as the airline won't try to bill every loss caused by the airport's fault. As a rule of thumb, you don't upset your business partners like that over peanuts, more so if claims go both ways. They may even have agreed on how many minutes delay won't be billed.
Yet, this partnership may be put to the test when one of the partners is seen as cutting cost at the expense of the other, or when one really unexpected condition occurs (like that volcano on Iceland, which disrupted air traffic in central Europe for two weeks or more).

That's right, the only case when the airport can't charge the airline is when the delay or extra time spent on the gate is airport management fault. Anyways everything depends on the country and the airport.

I didn't downvote.  But this answer is a little hard to follow, and some supporting evidence would be great.


text:
Can I use a 150mw green laser to scare pigeons and not interfere with air traffic?
Pigeons are annoying since they make aggressive cooing noises near my house. Considering many options for their dispersal, it seems lasers are one options since for some reason the lasers drive the pigeons crazy. In one video pigeons are completely dispersed by a 150mw green laser, making it appear to be an attractive option for dispersing my pigeon problem.
However I am concerned that maybe the lasers will continue into the atmosphere past the pigeons, and will affect air traffic....Obviously this is not worth the benefit of dispersing pigeons.
Is this totally out of the question? Are there any rules of thumb one should follow here to be on the safe side to not affect aircraft?

Pointing a laser at the sky is always a risk, and depending on your location, may be an even larger risk.

I think pointing a 150mW laser would be really mean because that is powerful enough to disorient or even blind humans too. Won't a 5mW red laser be enough to annoy pigeons?

This can be of interest: http://www.flyingmag.com/news/fbi-expands-laser-education-program

Someone sees you using a green laser and drops a dime on you.  The cops show up.  The conversation goes like this: "Gee, no, Officer, I was just scaring pigeons... honest!"  How do you think the rest of the story goes?

You could permanently blind pigeons with a laser I think, which would be an animal cruelty case even if you don't get prosecuted for interfering with aircraft. Use a super-soaker or a garden hose to squirt them instead. Or get a cat.

Perhaps 5mW laser. I am not near an airfield and don't appear to be under the takeoff/landing end of air routes. Seems the risk of dazzling someone is not worth it, even for pigeons. Good point Skip. I considered airsoft guns and lasers. Likely both going to cause issues for me and others. I want something pigeon selective. Maybe a super soaker - but they are cooing and strutting on the roof above my neighbours windows...I would have to launch the cat across a ~ 10m span to get it on target. And then there's retrieving the cat...More animal cruelty, GdD. Riches await whoever solves "pigeons".

Actually it looks like even a 5mW laser is out, because  http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2817/why-is-laser-illumation-of-a-cockpit-an-emergency

Sounds like a decent question for pets.se "how do I get rid of the g.d. cooing pigeons?" They're a problem for me as well.

@Cris :) To retrieve the cat, train a good dog

Are the pigeons native wildlife, or an introduced species?

There are cases where you can use a laser pointer safely, such as pointing out constellations in a dark field far from any air traffic, but as a general rule of thumb lasers should not be pointed skyward - not even to get rid of irritating sky rats pigeons.
Should you wind up illuminating an aircraft with your laser you can cause serious problems for the crew - inadvertent or not it could get you a visit from some very unhappy law enforcement officials.

There are many other ways to get rid of pigeons, some of which are used at airports and many of which are more effective (and safer) than your laser idea.
Your local Animal Control group may be able to offer some additional ideas.
(Avoid the "predator bird statue" idea - in my experience pigeons realize it's fake and use it as a toilet.)

In some interview local airport hawker mentioned, that he has to let the hawks hunt to kill. If the hawk never hurt anything, the birds would learn it's harmless over time and would stop fearing it. (So yes, predator bird statue is definitely useless.)

@voretaq7 I've a car which birds think as fake and do what you suggested.

@Farhan "At least they don't build nests in it" ?

I like the suggestions of birth control and asking a local animal control group. Good ideas. It's just I kind of want a enormous anti-pigeon "cannon" that can just be rid of them forever. Like a devastatingly effective anti-pigeon weapon. Disperse: with extreme prejudice .. so currently I am still seeking for a silver bullet.

That weapon is a BB gun! I had a major pigeon problem that I was unable to solve until in desperation, I shot them with a Red Ryder BB gun that I received as a gag gift. It's not as cruel as you might think. It's probably more humane than blinding them with a laser. A basic BB gun doesn't fire pellets all that fast, and the birds weren't injured. They were however knocked off their perches and highly surprised by the impacts. A few shots and they decided never to come back. Maybe those birds are smarter then we realize...

I use a marshmallow gun to scare away squirrels and grackles from my bird feeder. The mini marshmallows are biodegradable (and yummy) and the gun's pop when it shoots is enough to get the critters running. In the uncommon event of actually hitting them, no permanent damage is done.
And in response to your question, I think you might end up blinding the pigeons and building up bad pigeon karma.

+1 for bad pigeon karma. Yep you gotta consider that one. Don't want to get sent to pigeon hell as a blind pigeon forever.

And marshmallows ... +1 for that too.

Once the pigeons figure out the "yummy" part, this might have a different effect than intended.

This kind of laser is class 3B laser. You may not be allowed to possess it.
Even if you are, this laser come with serious technical restriction such as deactivation if you point it upward.

Care to cite a source for this? Just saying 'you may not be allowed to possess it' doesn't help anyone. I have used lasers with outputs greater than 150mw with no such deactivation feature.


text:
Can a drone travel beyond the range of its remote control signal?
In a hobby drone, is it possible to set up the autopilot so that the drone travels to a distance far beyond the range of the remote control device and then comes back to the starting point? When I see hobbyists flying drones , it seems the drone always hovers within the boundaries of the field.
Is it possible for a drone to reach a friend's house on the other side of town and then come back to the start point?

You're asking if drones can be autonomous?

Feb 2016: Drone at 5,500 ft misses A320 by 5 meters over LFPG (story). As this area is about 100 ft MSL. So definitely beyond normal range.

If the controlling software allows it then yes. There's at least one drone available where autonomous flight is possible; the Vision 2 FAQ says that the drone will continue its "mission" even if you lose the signal to it, although the overall length of the flight path is limited to 5km and the drone will not fly close to airports. Other drones stop and hover or land if they lose the connection to the controller.
Whether doing this is actually a good idea (or legal in whichever jurisdiction you want to operate in) or not is a whole other question.

Good idea or not, it's likely to get you some unwanted attention from the FAA unless they've approved your operation under a waiver. As far as they're concerned right now "hobbyist drones" are model aircraft, and need to be under the visual control of the operator (in direct line-of-sight) at all times.

direct line of sight...what does that mean? always visible with naked eye? OR with powerful telescope?

@voretaq7 The OP is in Canada :-) The regulatory issues are another topic, but I've edited my answer very slightly to mention them

@Victor I guess that depends on the local regulations, e.g. the UK requires "unaided visual contact"

I know Canada has started to enact some actual regulations -- down here in the stone age USA we just have a really old advisory circular (AC 91-57 on model aircraft) and some proposed rules which call for unaided visual line of sight like the UK regs.

In general, unmanned flight control systems operate in one of two main modes: manual control and program.  (There are other modes but these are typically specific situations, such as launch/landing sequences, loss of link (aka "return home"), and any other design-specific operating modes as required (see below).
To answer your question, if link is lost while the aircraft is in manual operation, a good flight system will automatically go into "return home" mode, where it flies to a pre-programmed GPS coordinate and altitude.  Some software will allow you to customize the sequence, such as whether or not to spiral up to altitude before heading to that coordinate.  Other software will backtrace the route it took.
Aircraft following a pre-programmed route typically change to manual mode upon completion, hoping there's a good ground link at the other end.  In military operations, this is known as a "hand-off" where one ground station takes control from another.
One Shadow flight I was running lost link immediately after launch.  After completing its autolaunch sequence, it went to return home and circled for hours until it ran out of fuel, at which point the engine stalled and the generator (alternator) hiccuped in transition to battery power, causing the flight processor to reboot, at which point we re-acquired link, though too late to do anything about it.  The UAV had already noticed its engine wasn't spinning and initiated its ditch sequence, rolling over and popping the chute.

From a technical standpoint, as other answers pointed out, it is technically feasible. For instance, universities have attempted a 180 km flight over the Mediterranean sea.
However, there are also legal issues involved when flying a drone beyond the range of the remote control device. For instance, in France, even when using an autopilot to control a drone, a safety pilot must stand ready to take control of the drone in case anything happens.
The Chicago Convention (1944), article 8 states that

No aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot shall be flown without a pilot
  over the territory of a contracting State without special authorization by that
  State and in accordance with the terms of such authorization. Each contracting
  State undertakes to insure that the flight of such aircraft without a pilot in
  regions open to civil aircraft shall be so controlled as to obviate danger to civil
  aircraft.

In many countries, these special authorizations can take a few months (a little more than three months in the case of the 180 km flight over the Mediterranean sea) to obtain, so hobbyists usually don't bother.

Yes, most of the sophisticated consumer drones allow you to pre-program a track into them and can fly totally autonomously.
Also, most of even the less expensive drones (FN1) are designed to return back to their starting GPS coordinates if they lose their control signal.
Fn1: Less expensive still means around USD 500 or so. Sophisticated drones are USD 1000 and up.

From a technical perspective, there's nothing preventing it. It wouldn't even be very difficult to write the code to do it if you had a GPS receiver on board, especially if you also had accelerometers to interpolate position between GPS fixes. For that matter, remote control via a cellular network wouldn't be particularly complicated from a technical implementation perspective (and this would also aid in navigation if you triangulate position from the towers.)
Where the problem comes in is legal issues. Specifically, in the U.S., at least, operating such an unmanned aircraft outside the line-of-sight of the operate is illegal unless you have a special license from the FAA, which is generally only granted to federal government agencies or law enforcement/emergency/rescue organizations or to aircraft R&D organizations. According to the FAA:

Recreational use of airspace by model aircraft is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57 (PDF), which generally limits operations for hobby and recreation to below 400 feet, away from airports and air traffic, and within sight of the operator.

Federico was right on in his comment in that this is a weak 'answer' and yes, I know better than that.
While not answering the body, this question does answer the one in the title.
See Man detained outside White House for trying to fly drone, as well as related stories of that day, for an example on what not to do with your UAV...
As a synopsis, if I remember the details correctly, a US Federal employee was at a friends house in Washington D.C. and they were playing with the friend's new quad-copter (some might call it a drone). There was much drinking and celebration and the man was flying the quad while quite drunk. He flew it towards the White House and it disappeared. It landed itself on the White House lawn. So, yes, a 'drone' can fly beyond radio range.

Depends on the programming of the drone - mostly if it contains code for autonomous operations. Furthermore, it can have a "drone call home" subroutine which would cause it to become "autonomous" (it isn't fully autonomous, but it can fly on it own in a straight line).